Transcript comparisons
.png)
(IB = Innocents Betrayed by Dr Sandra Lean)
Luke's other girlfriend - Page 169 IB
"The claim that he was planning to visit her again in July 2003 was based on Corinne’s plan to holiday in the same place – a plan that had since been cancelled. Jodi and Luke were, in fact, planning a sleepover at a friend’s house the following weekend as part of a birthday celebration – the very weekend the prosecution alleged Luke would be going to see (KT). None of the available evidence supported the claim that Luke was seeing another girl"
Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 pages 2263 and 2264
P2263: Right, was he supposed to be visiting K at (hometown) in the course of summer 2003? - Yes, he was supposed to be going up there.
Was he supposed to be staying? - He was supposed to be staying at K's, yes
For how long?- I wasn't sure, probably a week.
Page 2264: Do you see in the middle of that page that it records you having told the Police that Luke had been due...had been intending to go to (K's hometown) this weekend, 5th July, to stay with C and K, D'you see that? - Yes
It is also agreed that Luke spent Saturday night on the phone to KT.
Porn on the computer
P318 IB - "It's plain to see Shane admitted no such thing".
” Shane originally told investigators he was looking at car sites - the computer records demonstrated that the links to pornographic sites each connected for a few seconds, indicating that they were, almost certainly, pop-ups"
Shane's transcript 12/01/2005 page 2042
Okay. So should we understand that you were browsing through pictures that were available accessing the Hun site (*A porn directory, as he previously agreed) - Yes
And does that mean, Mr Mitchell, that you were watching pornography on your computer that day? - Yes
And that's just after returning home from work? - yes
Page 2060: Right and as you've got to the stage where you wanted to look at the car related site? - yes
Were the porn sites still open? - No they were closed down
Page 2061: Shane: Well normally I don't look at porn and look at the car sites at the same time, I look at them one at a time.
The knife being handed in to Police
P224 IB - "She later remembered where it was and handed it to Luke’s solicitor. The solicitor’s statement, confirming the handing over of the knife to the police, was in the defence papers."
Jibber Jabber Podcast 28/02/21 - Dr Lean states that Corinne remembered where the knife was the next day, and handed it to the solicitor, who handed it to Police.
Corinne's Transcript 13/01/2005 Look with me please at defence label number...is that it (the knife)? - It looks like it yeah
Yes, well you'll understand that it appeared just on the eve of the trial? (seven months after the search) - Well Nigel must have given it to you then.
A long walk to Justice, by Scott Forbes page 919
"Records show the knife was handed in to Police by Luke's solicitor, Nigel Beaumont, who gave a statement confirming that".
"The 'never been found knife' was shown to Luke Mitchell in Police photographs on August 14th 2004"
The knife wasn't handed in until the evening after the trial - which was 7 months after the knife pouch with the writing was found. It was found on April 14th 2004 - so could not have been the same knife shown to Luke in Police photographs in August 2003 - the photographs referred to in this book, of Luke's knife, were shown to him during the section 14 interview on 14th August 2003 - not 2004.
Shane believed he got home from work at around 4.40pm
IB p304 - Shane was completely up-front about having forgotten that was what he did, or perhaps because the later time of Shane arriving home fell perfectly into the hands of officers building a case in which it could be claimed Luke may not have gone home from school but headed directly for the woodland strip instead."
"Amending the time of his return to the family home to around 4.40pm to account for stopping off at the friend’s house, Shane’s updated account was supported by the friend"
Shane's transcript 12/01/2005 page 2032
And you got in about 15 minutes later, which would be between 5 to 5 and 5 o'clock? - Right
Does that sound about right? - That sounds about right
13/01/2005 page 2165 - Okay the second statement, July 7th one, was the one where you told Police you were home about 5 to 5? - Yes
And was that right? - Yes, I was home at 5 to 5
Did he see Luke?
Page 304 IB:
"He did recall, once prompted, the burnt pies, although he was dependent on his mother and brother for confirmation of the day in question. The response to this addition to his account was catastrophic for Luke – by the time the case came to court, it was used to claim that Shane and Corinne had conspired to create a cover story for Luke."
and
Page 308 IB: "The way the prosecuting QC went about this line of questioning backed Shane down blind alley after blind alley with questions designed to elicit strict “yes” or “no” answers until he got what he wanted - an apparent agreement that during the whole period and right up to trial, Shane had never remembered whether Luke was at home or not. That was never the case, but the information was so successfully manipulated that it appeared to be so."
Page 318 IB: "He told the court that he did see Luke when he (Shane) came down for tea, but the police would not believe him because he had not said so in his first statement"
Shane's Transcripts 12/01/2005 page 2144 Well just think about it. And bear in mind the discussion we've just been through? - I genuinely do not remember seeing my brother.
Transcript 13/01/2005 page 2170 (Talking about the mash tatties and burnt pies statement)
Quoting Shane's July 7th (amended) statement with DC Michelle Lindsay: "Luke was still at the cooker mashing the tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. It was a tinge in the smell. I said alright to Luke, I didn't mention the burnt...the burning smell as I didn't want to insult him. He was pretty happy..."
Shane responds to this: "When I was giving this statement to Michelle Lindsay, I couldn't remember, I was still shaken up. And she was prompting me, she says right Shane, you had tatties for dinner, how did the tatties get there? Picture it in your minds eye, did you see your brother.....and then she wrote down Luke was making the tatties".
Referring to the statement, Shane is asked "It's not right is it?" - "No"
Page: 2238: And is it at the end of the day your position- is it, correct me if I'm wrong - you can't remember if Luke was in the house or not? - yes
The parka/Green German shirt
IB page 222 "These were recorded, transcribed interrogations. Where did the dozens of witnesses who saw Luke in a German army shirt go? Their statements were never released to the defence and they were never called to give evidence. It may have been that they never existed in the first place (since their statements were not in the defence papers) and those officers, on August 14th, whose behaviour was later described by appeal court judges as “outrageous and to be deplored,” were prepared to use anything, even outright lies, to try to force a confession out of a fifteen year-old boy. "
Innocents Betrayed page 222: Where did the dozens of witnesses who saw Luke in a German army shirt go? Their statements were never released to the defence and they were never called to give evidence.
Innocents Betrayed (By Dr Sandra Lean) page 127: Just before six o’clock, Luke was identified by people who knew him, sitting on a wall at the end of his street, 400 – 500 metres further along the Newbattle Road, wearing completely different clothes (baggy jeans, green bomber jacket with orange lining and distinctive, light coloured snowboarding boots).
AH, one of the three boys who saw Luke at around 6pm at the entrance to Newbattle Abbey crescent on Monday June 30th 2003, describes the clothing he believes Luke was wearing:
But there were also witnesses who saw Luke wearing a parka...
Corinne's Transcripts pages 2307 - 2315 - There are 8 witnesses, all named, who say they'd seen Luke wearing a parka jacket before the murder. Their relationship to Luke is also noted, as well as the time that they said they saw Luke wearing a parka.
Perverting the course of justice charges - jury 'not informed'
ALWTJ (A long walk to justice) page 870 "While Corrine Mitchell was on the stand the court was cleared for legal arguments and the charges of perverting the course of justice were dropped".
Transcript page 2260 - Corinne's charges are dropped and there is no mention of the Jury being removed or court being cleared, this is done in the middle of questioning and the questioning resumes - with the jury present.
Dock identification - "But his head is completely different"
IB 130 Lorraine Fleming’s dock identification was particularly outrageous. Asked by the prosecution QC if she could identify, in the court, the person she saw that day, she said: “Not sure.” Encouraged by the same QC to say if she could recognise someone in court who resembled him, perhaps from a different angle or perspective, she replied: “Yes, but his head is completely different.” Unbelievably, that was accepted as a positive identification.
Transcript 01/12/04 It would appear that the witness had not yet been asked if she could identify him in court, when she replied that she wasn't sure, this was in response to whether she would recognise him if she saw him again in the flesh and before she was asked to look around the court room. At no point did the witness appear to reply "yes, but his head is completely different". She did say that his hair looked different.
(The intention of this point is not to argue whether this witness testimony was accurate or not, just to point out the what was actually said).
IB 230: "The week after Jodi's murder, Luke picked up a music magazine in a local supermarket - inside was a "bonus" promotional Marylin Manson DVD (not the full version)."
The transcripts confirm that Luke bought the DVD TWO days after the murder on July 2nd. (Research confirms that Kerrang did not have a bonus Manson DVD at that time)
https://lmtranscriptdiscussion.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-black-dahlia-connection.html
The log burner
IB page 217
Luke was asked, during the interrogation on July 4th, if the log burner was used on the night of June 30th. (Note, it was not a “stove,” it was a semi-circular brick construction built around a barbecue base around 10” high and 14” in diameter. The brick wind shield was around 30” high). He said he thought his mother and brother had a fire that night. During the August 14th interrogation, Luke was accused of lying, the police claiming he said Corinne and Shane did use the burner, but they were saying they did not. During a heated exchange, Luke pointed out that he had been out that evening, so he could not have said for sure whether or not the burner was in use. The interrogating officers continued to insist Luke had told them, definitely, that his mother and brother had a fire.
Sgt Thomson's transcript page 1716: Luke states that his mum and brother did have a fire - this is from the August 14th interrogation. This is just one section from the interview and he may have later argued that he couldn't say for sure as he was out, but he did say during this interview, that his mum and brother had a fire that night.
Link: https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/sergeant-thomson-30122004-day-two-of.html
DC Michele Lindsay asked Luke to draw a sketch?
IB page 257 What was Michelle Lindsay’s “specific role”? At what point did those officers tell Corinne or Luke that Michelle Lindsay was part of the investigating team, sent into their home to collect any evidence she could against them and that anything Michelle Lindsay took from them (including sketches she asked Luke to draw) may be used in evidence against Luke?
DC Lindsay transcript page 1438
"And did she do anything else to explain the route that she would have taken?" - "Yes, he offered to draw me sketches of the route."
IB page 231
It was she who told the Mitchell family, a week into the investigation that Jodi had not been sexually assaulted.
DC Lindsay transcript page 1449
"On 2nd July when you went to the Mitchell household, you went there on the instruction on a Detective Inspector, is that right?" - "That's correct sir."
"Did you, when you went to Luke's house, speak to him and his mum?" - "I did sir"
"Did you tell them about the circumstances of the crime?" - "I did sir"
"Did you tell them so far as you were aware, Jodi's death was the result of a knife attack?" - "That's correct sir, I was instructed to tell them that."
"But there was no evidence of a sexual assault?" - "That's correct sir".
It would appear here that she advised of this on 2nd July, two days after the murder, not a week in to the investigation.
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/03/dc-lindsay-testimony-20th-and-21st.html
The claim Jodi's brother Joseph didn't have an alibi for the time of the murder, other than his mother
IB Page 90
The case against Luke weighed heavily on the assertion that he had no alibi for the claimed time of the murder (his mother, of course, was disbelieved), yet Joseph’s only alibi for the claimed time of the murder was his mother.
Allen Ovens transcript page 5/6
"I take it your intention that evening was to have your meal at home with Mrs Jones" - "Yes"
"Did that happen?" - "Yes"
"And who else was there for the meal?" - "Joseph"
Page 9 - Mr Ovens agrees that the meal would have been within an hour of him arriving home from work - which was around 4.40pm (timing revisited on page 34)
Mr Ovens is asked who was in the living room after he believed Jodi had left the house/heard the door banging shit. He replied 'Joseph' - Page 5
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/02/allen-ovens-full-transcript-26122004.html
The arterial spray on the wall
Book = 'A Long walk to justice'
Page 2369 –
“There is no arterial spray and no blood spill, so where were the six litres of blood that Jodi should have lost?”
Page 1571 “Professor Busuttil however, was sure of one thing, Jodi Jones would have lost at least six litres of blood, but there was no ‘blood spill’ under her body or at the immediate locus, no photographs of blood soaked ground, the blood spray that was the locus was not “arterial spray” and did not affect that of the blood lost. There were no soil reports or samples taken.
Busuttil’s transcripts:
AT: We've heard that the pattern of blood staining there (on the wall), at least in parts, is consistent with what you might find by way of a large severed blood vessel? - I totally agree with that, yes
Alright. Does that tend to tell you anything, as to where the young girl was when the cutting fatal injuries to the throat were inflicted? - It suggests very strongly that the final cut, which killed her on the neck, happened very close to home.
And of course if she was at or against the wall when the throat injuries were inflicted, that's where she would have died? - indeed (page 1859 backwards)
Page 1883 - Because the spray on the wall also suggests that that was, I suppose it would probably be the carotid artery? - It looks like an arterial spurt, yes
If that is an arterial spurt, at that point in time she is so low down that it spurts on to the wall? - Yes
p1873 "The likeliest site where the cut throat fateful injury happened was by the wall"
1871 "If it's a small vessel the body can recuperate and indeed compensate. If it's a large vessel, there is no possibility of recuperation"
Andrina Bryson couldn’t guess an age?
Innocents Betrayed, page 123: She did not see her face and could not guess an age.
Actually, the witness did provide an estimate of the age of the girl
From her original statement given to Police on July 2nd 2003:
"I would describe the girl as female, white, approximately 15-16 years, 5 ft 5 inches, slim build. Dark hair, quite thick, not straight, possibly a wavy wave or curl through it. Her hair reached down on to and just past her shoulders"
17 Andrina Bryson said the photo was ‘very like’ the person she saw that day
Mrs Bryson picked out Luke’s photo as “very like” the person she saw on the afternoon of June 30th, even though she was clear that she did not see the face of that person.
What do the transcripts say?
This same statement appears to be read out during Page 183 of Mrs Bryson's evidence:
"Image 4 is very, very like the male I saw at the top of the path".
The witness also goes on to say (and this is not mentioned in Innocents Betrayed)
In regards to the photograph - "It looked like a person who was there that day, yes"
She is questioned regarding pointing out the photograph showed to her by Police
And did you point that photograph out to Police? - I did, yes
And why did you point that person out to the Police, who did, do you think the person was? - I took it to be the person I saw that day
She also said "I'm sure as I can be that it is the same male"
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/andrina-bryson-10th-nov-2004.html
The covering of the body
Page 182 IB - The contamination of the scene itself, the failure to cover the body, the effect of failing to obtain the other searchers’ clothing and to forensically examine them, the instant decision to treat Luke the way he was treated - all were done and could not be undone. Whatever evidence was lost in those early hours was lost forever.
Page 181 The sad reality is that, in spite of more than 12 experienced officers attending the scene between midnight and 8am the following day, Jodi’s body lay, uncovered, in the rain, throughout that whole period.
SIO Craig Dobbie’s transcripts:
P80 - CD explains that the tent wasn’t erected because the space was confined and could have potentially damaged or interfered with the recovery of evidence.
SIO Craig Dobbie transcript Page 79
Forensic officer Derek Scrimger's statement is read out: "A few areas of blood staining were visible but had been significantly affected by rainwater"
Dobbie explains that it had rained heavily before Police arrived at the scene
He also explains that a tent could not be erected without potentially damaging the recovery of evidence - Page 80
https://lukemitchelltrialtranscripts.blogspot.com/2024/06/sio-dobbie-30th-december-2004.html
Comments
Post a Comment